The story of the star-crossed MGC is sad indeed, about as sad as seeing this one sit here immobile for the last eighteen years. At least it merits a new tarp every couple of years. But maybe the long rest is strategic: MGCs are now very much in demand again, and fixes for most of its intrinsic shortcomings were developed long ago. Well, that goes for just about every British car that arrived not so well-conceived and sorted out. So it just needs a little love. Can we find any for it?

The MGC had a short life (1967-1969), and its story can be fairly readily grasped in a short version too (here’s AUWM’s long one). The MGB was a finely-balanced sports car, thanks in part to its compact 1.8 L four, set well back in the engine compartment, but it wasn’t exactly brimming with power. Already by 1963, a plan was hatched to build a six cylinder car to replace both the obsolete Austin Healey 3000 as well as a more powerful MG. Healey saw it for what it was: a six-cylinder MGB, and walked away.

The only engine BMC could muster in the end was a worked-over version of the 3 liter six that had powered the big Healey. A veritable boat anchor, the BMC engineers made a mostly-futile stab at lightening it, and bestowing seven main bearings on its crankshaft. The result was a still too-heavy engine, weighing some 200 lbs more than the B’s four. And shoehorning in the six also required a new torsion bar suspension and a raft of other changes, the most visible being the 15″ wheels and the hood’s distinctive two blisters.

The main blister with the ill-placed chrome band might well be emblematic of the unfortunate compromises the MGC embodied.

Couldn’t they have come up with something just a tad more dashing and stylish? The hood scoop, real or fake, has a long history and comes in so many varieties; this might have been a moment for the BMC designers to crack open a few books or magazines.

The result of all this effort (and lack of it) was a faster MGB, but the trade-offs weren’t mostly worth it, both to the magazine reviewers, and most of all, the buyers. The MGC lost the nimble balance that was a hallmark of the B, due to the extra weight on the nose, slower-geared steering, and softer suspension. And the power from the big six wasn’t exactly all that thrilling either: 145 hp. The MGC was a flop, and soon disappeared.

The sad thing is that the MGB was just screaming out for the aluminum Rover V8 (ex-Buick), which weighed forty pounds less than the MGB four. And if the MGC project had been delayed just a bit, it may well have had it, given the 1968 merger that created BLMC. Now that would have created a killer MGC, and we’d all be praising what a brilliant marriage the two made.

Actually, Ken Costello had been doing that since 1969, when he saw the natural affinity these two cars had for each other (I wonder if anyone in the US didn’t even earlier). He made several hundred of them, and with a 0-60 time of 7.8 seconds, they were a hot item in England at the time. Within a few years, MG took a look at one, and after a test drive, commissioned Costello to build a prototype. In 1973, it became a production car, but only in the GT coupe form. The V8 was certified for the US, but never exported, a victim of Triumph’s dominant role at BL. The TR7 (and later the V8 TR 8) were on the way, and they did not want competition from a very viable in-house competitor. A more detailed account of Costello’s story and the MGB V8 is here.

The plates on the front of this long-slumbering C are from Washington, with a 1994 sticker.

But a closer look at the rear shows an Oregon plate, with a ’96 sticker. We can easily surmise what happened here: car was bought in WA, and brought to Eugene with high hopes. And then something dashed the dream. Who knows? But this would make a nice project, especially since the GT version has better weight distribution than the roadster. And there are plenty of ways to mitigate some of the shortcomings: engine tuning parts, stiffer torsion bars, better shocks, and better tires all combine to make the MGC GT a quite pleasant GT car, if not the nimble and tossable roadster that the B is. Time to leave your tarped cave, and shine! Just because you’re an MGC is no reason to hide forever. After all these decades of scorn, we can muster some love.

13 Comments

The initial problems can easily be sorted but it still doesn’t make a lot of rational sense to run a C (of course classic car ownership rarely has any rational thought behind it). The running costs are higher due to parts supply on a lot of the more unique to the C bits. Hard to imagine a better supported by the market classic car than the B. Looks are subjective of course but I’d say the C doesn’t improve on the B. The C does of course have a bit more power. If you want a B with a bit more power than stock it is only a bolt on supercharger kit away. Engine swaps of course open up a whole new world of power. So the C has rarity going for it which is a mixed bag because of the increased running costs and of course most folk think it is probably just a run of the mill B. The 15″ wires do look nice though.

Well, the C has a couple of advantages as far as the prospective owner is concerned, which is I think why it’s developing a following.

First, since it’s not so expensive or valuable that people get obsessive about originality, you can rectify some of its basic shortcomings without being crucified. Even in stock form, the C does have a significantly better power-to-weight ratio than an MGB (it’s something like 2.5 seconds faster to 60), and if you’re willing to make a few changes like lightening the flywheel and adding a Downton-style intake manifold, you can get 175 hp or so without too much strain. Even with a supercharger, getting that kind of performance out of a B-series engine starts sounding iffy except perhaps for strictly on-track use. And as Paul mentions, it isn’t terribly difficult to sort the C’s handling, although its balance means it’s never going to be quite as nimble as a B.

In terms of parts, it’s true that that version of the six isn’t available in infinite numbers, and if you have to do a front-end rebuild the C-specific pieces are not as abundant, but the C benefits from the fact that a lot of it is pretty much just an MGB, or otherwise borrowed from the BMC parts bin.

The main thing, though, is that it stands out from the crowd. The MGB is so ubiquitous that it doesn’t grab much attention — it’s like the Tri-Five Chevy of British sports cars. By comparison, the MGC is like a ’58 Bel Air with a 348. A ’58 Chevy doesn’t have the same support as the Tri-Fives, and even a ’58 owner will probably admit that the car isn’t as classic a design, but it’s different enough that even other Chevrolet people will come up to take a look. If you value collector cars as conversation pieces, there’s something to be said for that.

In my comment after the MGB piece (in which I asked if you would have an MGC for us tomorrow), I was just being silly, never expecting that you would have one at the ready. Eugene, Oregon – what a place!

Let’s see now – – for my next request, howabout one of the 1946 Chrysler Town & Country 2 door hardtops that beat GMs versions by 3 years. Or maybe a 64 Studebaker Daytona convertible. I have faith in you, Paul, and I am sure that you will come across one soon. 🙂

That Washington plate is from Franklin County (Pasco, Richland area), probably mid-1970’s original issue. I wonder if the mere process of getting the car to Eugene from there was the original pin in the balloon of that particular MG C.

I know that the C had a six but I still think of it as a B with a hardtop. I would not have swapped my B for one but then I proved I wasn’t too smart when I bought the B. I was smart enough to not buy a Healey 3000 although I came close.

I still think a fairly modern v6 with an automatic makes sense. Failing that, anything more reliable with whatever transmission and good electrics. The shape of these things still can make me drool.

It’s an issue of semantics, whether to call it a “version” or not. I said “worked-over version”, which is correct enough in my book. It certainly wasn’t a clean-sheet design. The AH 3000 engine is what they started with, before they made a number of changes to it, such as lightening the block casting, and the additional main bearings, and a re-worked head. Unfortunately, the changes to the head resulted in poorer breathing, so the C’s engine made less power than the AH 3000 engine.

Paul is right. One notable point is that the newer version of the six, despite being lighter and a bit more compact, had the same bore and stroke dimensions of the older four-bearing C-series. Some of the engineers suggested taking the opportunity to give the seven-bearing engine a more oversquare configuration, but that idea was vetoed on cost grounds. So, I’d also call the MGC/3-Litre engines a makeover, not a wholly new design.

Love that you qualify the Rover V8 (ex Buick) every* single* time! Marvellous engine indeed (one of the few V8s actually lighter and more compact than many 4s). But I do have a hankering for inline 6cyls…

And, yes, I’m very occupied right now, splitting time between work, study and sleep, but I still catch up on CC. Keep up the good work.

Not sure the MGB was ever a ‘finely balanced sports car’, with a solid rear axle mounted on cart springs it was never likely to be a thrilling ride! A Fiat 124 sport, Lancia Fulvia or Alfa Spider will run rings around a B. Despite their shortcomings I am slowly becoming more forgiving of the MGB and it’s variants though- after all they were cheap, reliable and build quality at the Abingdon factory was pretty good.
What the B really needed was a modern DOHC four, not a V8 or 6, a few MGAs were built with a rather tricky OHC engine, so MG were on the right track.